Tag: First Amendment

This past weekend saw NFL players taking a knee or not coming out for the Star Spangled Banner during football games, and both Left and Right went ballistic. The Left cried “free speech” (along with “Trump is a racist/sexist/homophobe/islamophobe/phobe-du-joir), and the Right cried “disrespect.” So, where does your favorite free speech loving, ruggedly handsome independent blogger stand on kneeling?

To put it mildly and in the form of a Facebook relationship status, it’s complicated.

Both sides of this controversy have good points, and both are completely wrong. (Told ya it was complicated.) The football players who decided to protest have a right to express themselves in the ways they did. You may not agree with why they were protesting, but it’s not even up for debate: they have the right to protest.

The people saying their protest was disrespectful to America, the flag, and our fighting men and women are correct. I see it as only slightly less offensive than Michael Moore’s eating habits. But free speech isn’t limited to speech we like. If we limit free speech only to speech we like, we could be looking at a situation where only a handful of people (probably people who post cute dog and cat pictures on the Internet) would be allowed to speak, and even they would be able to be silenced with a single complaint.

So, where exactly do I stand? In favor of free speech for the protesters, and the protesters of the protesters. In a situation like this, I will always opt for whatever guarantees the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people because the alternative sucks. When you put a lot of power in the hands of only a few, abuse occurs. Case in point: the IRS under Lois Lerner. Or the IRS in general.

But I do hope the protesters are open to having their actions criticized in the name of the same free speech they cloak themselves in when it suits their needs. Otherwise, their concern for free speech/protest would look rather…superficial.

Share This:

President Donald Trump and the media are a match made in the Tenth Circle of Hades. It’s like the Ninth Circle, but it’s away from the hustle and bustle of the Ninth. Plus, it’s on the bus line and it has great public schools. Whenever Trump says something, the media analyze it, have “experts” talk about it, figure out what kind of spin to put on it, and then broadcast it to the world without checking facts. Then, when the President gets upset and comments on it, the media pretend they’re under attack (in spite of the fact it’s their crappy reporting that created the problem in the first place).

To hear the Left talk about it, freedom of the press is under attack because of President Trump. “We are the first line of defense against the Trump Administration,” media figures cry as they find the closest American flag to wrap themselves in for that added effect. (I’m looking right at you, Keith Olbermann.) Whether you agree with the Left or are smarter than a bag of hammers, it’s time to take a look at the institution secured in the First Amendment.

freedom of the pressWhat the Left believes it means – a sacrosanct right that allows the press to act like the Fourth Estate and keep politicians honest

What it really means – a right that the Left has abused so the press can act like the Fifth Column to the Right and lapdogs to the Left

As a former journalism school student, I have a deep respect for reporters who go out and find news stories that matter. I want to buy you two or three good reporters a beer.

As for the rest of the media, I need to have a word with you. I know you think you’re doing great work trying to protect us from the evils of the Trump Administration, but you’re about as useful as the stick after you eat a corndog. And if you don’t know what a corndog is, that’s part of your problem, but we’ll talk about that later.

Let’s deal with the neon green elephant in the room: you guys and gals aren’t helping the situation under your current business model, which makes Gawker look responsible. How many stories have you run with that have been poorly sourced, if they were sourced at all? How many hit pieces have you published or broadcast over minutia like whether Donald Trump’s daughter’s nanny’s brother’s cousin’s optometrist’s dog walker had an overdue library book in 1978? How many times have you had to print or broadcast retractions to cover your collective hinders after being exposed as being hacks?

And you wonder why the media are trusted less frequently than used car salesmen.

Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to publish and broadcast the news, but it also gives me the right to call you out when you suck at your job. And right now, a billion Dysons at the center of a black hole can’t reach your level of suck. And, no, claiming to be defending the freedom of the press isn’t a shield from legitimate criticism. Say what you want about President Trump (and I know you will), he has a point about the current state of reporting. A lot of the news being generated from your ranks falls into a handful of buckets: celebrity, tragedy, political expediency, and stuff you make up to fill air time or column inches. Sometimes you combine some of the items in the buckets (like if Justin Bieber comes out with a new CD supporting Planned Parenthood and, when played backwards, gives proof of aliens at Area 51), but the point is you aren’t doing the best work right now.

Think about the reporters who came before you. Would Edward R. Murrow consider what you’re doing to be good reporting? Do you even know who Murrow is? If not, learn about him and try to emulate him whenever you can. And while we’re here, Keith Olbermann isn’t the second coming of Ed Wood, let alone Edward R. Murrow.

Freedom of the press is a legitimate shield in a lot of cases, and I wouldn’t want any politician, Left or Right, to curtail your right to report. Having said that, the right to a free press comes with the responsibility to use it responsibly. That’s where you folks are going wrong. Look at CNN’s Jim Acosta, for example. You may look up to him as a tough journalist, but if you strip away the ideological lenses, he’s trying to feather his own nest by trying to bring down Trump with nonsensical questions. That doesn’t help your legitimacy at all. And I can list a number of high-profile nothingburgers the media have put forth as news within the past few months. Shouldn’t you try to be more reliable than a Smart Car in a demolition derby?

Until then, I have a simple request. Stop pretending you’re doing something noble by defending freedom of the press against the Trump Administration and weed out the bad faith players within your ranks. Then maybe you can not only restore your former credibility, but have more people willing to support you when you take a stand in defense of the freedom of the press.

Share This:

The latest in the Donald Trump Constitutional Crisis Sweepstakes comes courtesy of our good friends at Twitter. Recently, the Knight First Amendment Institute posted a demand on Twitter that President Trump unblock his critics on Twitter, citing…wait for it…the First Amendment.

That’s right, kids. An institute committed to the First Amendment has asserted trolling a sitting President is a free speech issue. And people wonder why I think we’re doomed…

If it were just the Knight First Amendment Institute going out on this limb by themselves, it would be easy to dismiss it, but there are others, including attorney Lawrence Tribe, who take it seriously and are arguing the President should not have the ability to block people because it stifles their free speech. Now, I’m not a lawyer like Mr. Tribe, but I have a little experience with the First Amendment, given that I’m using it right now.

How can I put this so Mr. Tribe, the Knight First Amendment Institute, and others like them can understand? Oh yeah. This isn’t a free speech issue! Twitter is a private company and, as such, they have rules that each user has to follow. (Whether those rules are enforced evenly or at all is another matter for another blog entry.) Twitter also allows users the ability to block or hide some people’s posts at the discretion of the user. In fact, previous Presidents have blocked Twitter users before Trump, so it would lead me to believe it’s not really a free speech issue so much as it is a don’t-be-an-assbag issue.

The sticking point the Left has with this position is the fact President Trump has a Twitter an official White House Twitter account as well as a private one. Their argument is the fact Trump is President means his private Twitter account is a public forum because he is a government official. Yeah, that’s not how the First Amendment works. The first five words of the First Amendment read, “Congress shall make no law,” which means…well, that Congress can’t act. Since the President is not a member of Congress or the legislative branch, the First Amendment prohibitions would not apply to him, even if he is President.

The most confounding part of the Left’s line of thinking for me is how they can say their free speech rights are being violated by not being able to respond to whatever the President tweets. Hmmm…if only there were a way for these people to respond using the same technology the President uses. Oh, wait, there is. It’s called Twitter! The very forum they use to see what the President says is the same one they can use to issue a response. Trump isn’t stopping them from tweeting; he’s only ignoring what these folks tweet for various reasons. As hate speech critics are so quick to point out, the freedom to speak does not guarantee an audience. And, oddly enough, some of the same people who say hate speech isn’t protected are the same ones who think their tweets are free speech. Things that make you go “what color is the sky in your world?”

In the end, the Left’s treatment of President Trump’s Twitter as a free speech issue is shakier than Michael Moore in a vat of Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.2 on the Richter Scale. No matter how many times they try to make it so, it just doesn’t work. Although I have to admit it’s funny to see people who get offended at insignificant things working so tirelessly to defend the right to troll.

Share This:

If you felt a great disturbance in the Force as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, that was my fault. I had burritos for lunch.

If you felt a great disturbance in the First Amendment as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, you must have been following Twitter feeds regarding Gawker filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. For those of you unfamiliar with Gawker, count your blessings. Put simply, if the Internet had a birdcage, the bird would refuse to crap on Gawker.

The Leftist media are lamenting the fact a billionaire, Peter Thiel, was able to back a lawsuit against Gawker for defying a court order and publishing a sex tape involving former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan. They even tried to justify their actions on Gawker. And this position lead to…losing the lawsuit to a guy allowed to wear a bandana in court to the tune of $140 million. And I thought there were a lot of zeroes working for Gawker…

After the courts laid the judiciary smackdown on Gawker, they had financial difficulties leading to today’s announcement. Now, every so-called journalist seems to be lining up to fret about freedom of the press. After all, if Gawker could be taken down by a billionaire, what’s to stop others from doing the same?

Well, they could start by…oh, I don’t know…not breaking the law?

The Left’s concern about freedom of the press is admirable, but misplaced in this situation. It’s not like a billionaire has targeted the New York Times and bankrupted it. (Well, unless you count Carlos Slim, that is.) But aside from the obvious lack of comparability, journalism is not taking a hit by Gawker filing bankruptcy. If anything, it should be a wake-up call for journalists to act carefully when it comes to matters of personal privacy and the law. And if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law, you need to find your way back to the right side as quickly as you can. Don’t double down on stupid like Gawker did!

When it comes down to it, the First Amendment is healthier than the Left believes or wants it to be, Gawker or no Gawker. And if I had my wish, it would definitely be without Gawker.